Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, China, Volume II

302. Telegram From the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Aldrich) to the Department of State¹

London, July 15, 1955—6 p.m.

196. Re Embtel 176 to Dept 18 to Paris.² Following from FonOff:

1. Chou En-lai asked O’Neill to call on him at 3 p.m. QT [GMT]. Chou gave him text of his reply to US message³ which O’Neill had delivered on 13th. His reply which is headed “reply of the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the US Government through the British Government” and dated July 14 is as follows:

“Talks held between your and our consular representatives at Geneva have been conducted on basis of the agreement reached last year at Geneva by China and the US. During the past year we have given you timely and concrete information about US nationals in China. But regarding Chinese nationals in the US especially Chinese students in the US we have not received due and proper reply. Therefore resulting talks at Geneva in the past year between China and the US have been more negative to us.

It is our view that suggestion mentioned in your message is useful i.e., talks at Geneva between China and the US be conducted on a more authoritative level so as to aid in settling the matter of the return of civilians of both sides to their respective countries and to facilitate further discussions and settlement of certain other practical matters now at issue between the two of us.

In accordance with this suggestion we shall despatch a representative of ambassadorial rank to meet with your representative of comparable rank at Geneva. We propose that date of first meeting be July 21 of this year. We would like to know your views.”

2. Chou then added:

a. In making this reply Chinese Govt had taken account of the view of HMG that US proposal was most useful and had accordingly taken speedy action to state their agreement.

b. Chinese Govt agreed there should be no publicity until mutual agreement thereon had been reached with US.

c. Chinese Govt proposed that, after agreement had been reached on date July 21 suggested by them for original meeting in Geneva, US and Chinese Govts should agree on an announcement and issue it simultaneously. He then read out draft of this announcement proposed by Chinese Govt as follows:

“China and America having had consultations with each other agree that the talks held in the last year between consular representatives of both sides at Geneva be conducted on ambassadorial level in order to aid in settling the matter of the return of civilians of both sides to their respective countries and to facilitate further discussions and settlement of certain other practical matters now at issue between both sides. The first meeting of ambassadorial representatives of both sides will take place on July 21, 1955 at Geneva”.

d. Chou observed that in preparing this draft he had followed exactly much of language of US communication. He confirmed that his idea was simultaneous publication in Peiping and wherever the US chose to publish. He added good humoredly that as there was some difference between Chinese and US time it might be best agree on time of publication in terms of G.M.T.

3. O’Neill thanked Chou for his communication and said he would at once report it.

Acting UKHC New Delhi has reported that, subsequent to Nehru’s conversation with Amb. Cooper (New Delhi’s 81 July 14 rptd Paris 5)⁴ he delivered to Nehru text of revised note from President to Chou.⁵ Nehru still thought Chinese would not consider message an advance. FonOff therefore especially requests Dept’s authorization inform Nehru of Chinese reply.

Aldrich

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–1555. Top Secret; Niact; Eyes Only. Repeated for information to Paris for the Secretary.
2. Document 299.
3. Transmitted in Document 293.
4. Telegram 81 from New Delhi, July 14, reported a conversation that morning between Prime Minister Nehru and Ambassador Cooper. Nehru predicted that the Chinese would not consider the U.S. proposal an advance because it seemed to limit the scope of discussion to the release of nationals and because it would apparently cut off the existing exchange of views through the Indian Government. He also expressed concern that the Chinese might turn to the use of force if they believed there was no possibility of fuller negotiations. (Department of State, Central Files, 793.00/7–1455)
5. See footnote 3, Document 299.